Arbus's work is a good instance of a leading tendency of hight art in capitalist countries: to suppress, or at least reduce moral and sensory queasiness. Much of modern art is lowering the threshold of what is terrible.
影降低人在道德或感官上的之感。
(珊桑塔格忘了阿宅是不成立的。管我在於畸形、或死亡的材近於麻木。但是於日出花海美少女的久不衰。同暗示了珊桑塔格於真（感）的期待。要不然批影塑造安全的痛苦是有意的。）
Photography not only record experience but change the way toexperience.
影不只是，而是改了的形。
（那最不改形的是什？感影似乎好一些，那我可以因此宣影比重要？因影更近於人的？但似乎又不行，因那相似性可能有更大的。然珊桑塔格可以的指影的一特性，但然背後仍含整中意形的批。）
This, in turn to make it easy to feel that, any event, onceunderway, no matter what it’s moral character, should be allow to completeitself.
影促使人期待中的事件近完成，不其性如何。
（我想拍聊碎的西就是基於想法，因那是在世界中不能期待被完成的事，可是我就人，她出就好）
It turns people into objects that can be symbolicallypossessed.
影促使人注意那些有象徵意的西。
（不知道聊的西有有？）
Plato had made a metaphor that the Truth to human is justlike shadow from something behind. We all like primitives, facing the wall ofcave, and never know what happened outside. To this sense, words and paintingare the alienation of real world. Compared with words and paintings, Photographyreproduces reality, not only represent it.
影不是再真，而是重塑它。
（但如果按後代的看法，其一切都是重塑，所以也不影如此。我疑珊桑塔格究是一代主者，相信真，只是不相信就在那些史宗教的材，或最低限度上她是不是一宣什都是真的後代主者。）
The photographer is alway trying to colonize new ways to look at familiar subjects-to fight against boredom. For boredom is just the reverse side of fascination.
影是用一新的方式看事物，以抗聊。因聊就是像的另一面。
（珊桑塔格而言，有趣乎是影唯一可以定的本，其他道德上或是知上的功用都很。所以在意上聊正是影最大的人。影之所以不真，不在於它像文或是一提出，影之不真是因人生大部份是聊的，而影永回避一方面。）
The Chimese have a theory that you pass through boredom into fascination.
(不知道指的是哪一句？)
For Arbus, the camera photographs the unknown. But unknown to whom? Unknown to someone who is protected, who has been schooled in moralistic and in prudent responses.
於Arbus而言，相用以拍未知的事物，但是什人未知呢？那些受到保且被教成循蹈矩的人。
Tradition of surrealist art-their professed innocence with respect to their subjects, their claim that all subjects are merely objets trouves.
The interesting is now mainly a consumerist concept, bent on enlarging its domain: the more tings become interesting, the more the marketplace grows.
The boring-understood as an absence, an empriness-implies its antidote: the promiscuous, empty affirmations of the interesting: It is a peculiarly inconclusive way of experiencing reality.
In order to enrich this deprived take on our experience, one would have to acknowledge a full notion of boredom: depression, rage(suppressed despair). Then one could work toward a full notion of the interesting. But that quality of experience-of feeling-one would probably no longer even want to call interesting.
About detail: Pursuing detail in photos is the legacy of modernism belief and has been enhanced by camera manufactory. Peoples believe the nature of photography(If it exists) is to see more clear. The truth, however, is that we don't need to see that clear. So the requirement of detail does not help us to see the thing itself, it help us to see thing not like the way they are. So do the light in photography.
About exhibition: The emerging of exhibition also contributes this tendency. The more museums collect art works, the more difficult for people to appreciate them, because people's feeling are waar off by too much stimulating. The resolution is to make huge art work. That is the fast way to arise people'a interesting.
About small size: I printed most my pictures in small size because I want to decrease the importance of detail. I am trying to avoid any sensor pleasure from huge size. This idea is derived from chinese art. Artists believe a good work should not arise people sensual feeling. That is also the reason chinese painters don't draw light and shadow in their painting, cause the light is easy to connect to specific time and space, then to bring sentiment feeling to viewers. It is kind of like dead-pen photography, however, there is less aesthetic form in chinese art.
About nature of photography: Arthor Danto divides photographers into tow kind, one is the people believe "photography as art", the other is who believe" photography in art". To my understanding, it means we must against or, at least, transcend the nature of photography like light and shadow, precisely detail,(or on the contrast the shallow depth of field) and decontextualized of subject, then we can declaim that we are photographists not just photographers. The latter just use the nature of camera to make photos beautiful, the former build their own rule to determine what is beautiful.
About Joe Deal: Deal's photographs suppress whatever is sublime or attractive. His pictures compel us tp fill their emptiness with, the life we are eager to " make specoa;."
About Whitman: American culture is eager to invite people to identify. At first it was a belief to universalizing human nature contrary to specific cultural or religious tradition, but then it become some kind of sentimentalism to intrigue people's affection. The difference is,the former represent oneness in diversity, the latter requires diversity in oneness. I also wonder that is the reason American photography demand more moral mission and subject feeling rather than understanding of nature.
About wooden houses: i plan to photograph a wooden house community in Taiwan campare to the community in Mission Hill. Although both community composed by wooden house, the meaning to people living there, however, is totally different. There is a special name to describe wooden house in Taiwan, luxury farm house. Because those houses are built for rich guys. It represents not only the way of construction, but the ideal life style. However, wooden houses are normal to most Americans. Sometime they are even just the houses for people not so rich. The difference between Taiwan and America could be viewed as a surrealism process. It means people make ordinary stuffs out of their original context, and they are no longer ordinary anymore. By taking pictures of those houses, I want to know how people form their dream, and how they put these dream into practice.
Since I have came here, I find everything is bright and colorful. every piece of art is well organized, everyone is encouraged to state his idea. I got surprised and pleasure, but I still feel weird.
I don't know what beauty is?
Part of reason may be that we no longer believe universal beauty. Even I don't like Andy Walho, I have to admit he might be right. Sensuous experience and market seem like the only truth in art world. So everything we learn from art school is trying to help artists intrigue viewer's sensuous pleasure and build reputation in art world. If there is any other thing, i think the effort artists take maybe one.
According to these rules, we pursue subtle light and color, horrible disaster and pathetic story to intrigue person's instantaneous pleasure, we print our art work well to suit the exhibition form.
But I still can't accept it, because what i have learned from literati painting teach me to against sensuous pleasure and market mechanism.
Literati assume there is something beyond visual form. It's hard to depict. Furthermore, the more you are intended to pursue it, the more you are away from it. So an artist should not pay too much attention to visual form, and try to avoid intrigue viewer's sensuous pleasure. At this point, subtle light, bright color, well composition and precise are all being viewed as obstacle for artists.
It's not a kind of anti-aesthetic view, or dead-pan photography theory, because the great literati artists don't even consider themselves as artists.
It might seem nonsense to you. Because we do see some great art works and some successful artists, and it gives us a feeling that we have census.
As Arthor Danto's metaphot, we believe we are in a narrative story. When we talk about references and art form, we are trying to make sure our position in the story. But if one day we no longer in the story, how could we talk about beauty.
If I can't talk about beauty, how can i learn to create?
看是一的果，不存在如出生的
影源自於文代的透法，是一世界有秩序的方式。
影，透法都景物雨看者的相位置除。
